Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Glen Gordon wrote:

>
> Look, Jens. This is very very simple. We are using two different
> foundations for our views on the nominative *-s, leading us to
> two different conclusions. Only one of us may be correct.
>
> 1. You think that *-o- likely shows that nom. *-s is voiced.
> Hence you conclude earlier *-z.
>
> 2. I think that *-s and *-d are based on *so- and *to-.
> Hence I conclude earlier *-s& (and *-t&).
>
> Which is more realistic? The second assumption, my basis,
> requires far less pleading hands down. My basis is simply
> self-explanatory to anyone, taking elements that are already
> fully proven (*so-, *to-).

Assumption 2 is more complicated than 1 because it requires two things to
be true - and relevant. Since neither "*so-" nor "*to-" has the function
of the morphemes *-s and *-d, the requirement of relevance cannot be seen
to be met (to say nothing of what it requires to be true).

> Your basis is patently opaque requiring a lengthy explanation
> as to what a vowel *o has to do with voicing, and what basis
> exists for a distinct phoneme **z, before any meat of the
> arguement can be discussed. You manage as well to completely
> ignore the etymology of the suffixes, automatically assuming
> that they MUST be ancient. (And lest I emphasize yet again
> that a rare phoneme in the commonest suffixes is weird, weird
> weird.)

I only need to make my explanation lengthy to those who don't know the
phonetic facts I'm calling attention to. To those who are aware of them
already I don't have to say anything. I do not see sufficient ground for
setting up an "etymology" of any of the endings *-s and *-d; I simply do
not see these endings emerge out of anything that can be sensibly pointed
out.

>
> I don't have to go into detail about why *-o- does not suggest
> voicing of the following segment a priori. It would be absurd and
> wasteful debate because there are _clearly_ many possibilities
> for the source of any vowel. You know this.

I know it does suggest just that for this language, which is an
observation of far greater importance than anything one might concoct a
priori. The only other thing that would be expected to cause a stem-final
vowel to become /o/ *in this language* is /H3/; but we do not see that,
nor do we see any morphological justification for it.

>
> As for *to-d, it has *-d because as I said, it was always declined
> unlike the stem *so. The *-d served well to mark the pronominal
> nominoaccusative and to oppose *-s in the animate forms. The
> animate *so however was always undeclined and thus could not
> be marked, so *tod opposed *so, not **sos.

That's what you set out to prove, but you can't do it by incantation. You
are simply repeting over and over again what you would like to emerge from
your argumentation, only arguments to bring it forth are not presented.
This ceased to be a serious debate long ago.

> The feminine gender is outside the debate of IE (animate-inanimate,
> remember?) and so I don't need to explain feminine form *sax
> -- It is simply analogically created.

No, I don't remember, I wasn't around when it happened, and neither were
you. You are not giving any arguments to justify your position, it is
nothing but wishful thinking.

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> However.... Being that I've adapted Borg-like assimilation strategies
> to problem-solving, perhaps this is the time to mention a hybrid
> solution that incorporates both of our views together into a
> potentially superior possibility:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Perhaps, you are correct. Perhaps *-s does come from *-z... but not
> as you think. This *z was never distinct from *s. It was an allophone
> of *s in final positions. This environmental voicing of final *-s [-z]
> caused the thematic vowel *& to lengthen to *&: before the
> nominative as it does for all other voiced phonemes, eventually
> producing *-o-s. (Evidently then in this scenario, the aspirates *h,
> *x and *hW avoided voicing, in order to explain the human collective
> suffix *-ax, later used as feminine. All other phonemes were voiced
> in final position.)

If simplicity is your guide, why do you now condescend to consider my
solution in an unnecessarily complicated variant of your own making? Other
than that, you are basically just restating my view, so I can hardly
disagree very much.

>
> We will keep *-s& as the origin of the nominative. It would have
> been clipped to *-s in early Late IE, and voiced by allophony. Similarly,
> *-t& was clipped to *-t, and voiced to *-d as well. However, unlike
> the non-existent distinct phoneme **z, *d _was_ a distinct phoneme
> from *t already. So *-d was kept in places where *-t did not alternate
> with a medial position. This is why the 3ps is not **-d (because the
> ending also exists in medial position where this voicing did not exist:
> indicative *-t-i). This is why we have ablative *-od and pronominal
> n-acc. *-d with voiced stops for this very reason. This is why **z
> didn't catch on and remained an allophone of *s. We must also as a
> result conclude that the thematic genitive terminated in the relative
> pronoun *-y&: before voicing, otherwise we'd see *o in the genitive
> too (because *s would be final and voiced).

You are just ranting over unknowable things. You should depart from a
basis you can control. What in heaven's name is ablative *-od ? If I cared
I would ask you to rephrase the last sentence which is incomprehensible:
does "before voicing" mean "followed by something voiced" or "at a time
prior to an event of voicing"? I don't understand either interpretation.

>
> The aorist must be explained still by a restructuring of the shape
> of the verb root. It caused nominal stative roots of the form *CVC-&s
> to shorten to *CV:C-s- (with compensatory lengthening which is surely
> a seperate phenomenon from that of the thematic vowel anyway).

We know that where vowels are *known* to have disappeared there was no
compensatory lengthening. That makes the introduction of vowels into
underlying forms for the sole purpose of having them cause lengthening
when they are deleted highly suspicious and the opposite of illuminating.

>
> Now before we argue some more about the aorist, do some yoga,
> have a bubble bath and then come back to me and tell me what you
> think of the hybrid solution for nominative *-s.

It's not worthy of my time.

Jens